COLLEGE AND GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, HEALTH, AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Associate Dean for Administrative Affairs and Graduate Education
RESEARCH COUNCIL
November 22, 2010
MEMBERS ATTENDING: Aryn Karpinski, FLA; Frank Sansosti, LDES; Tim Rasinski, TLC; Jim Henderson, TLC;
Michelle Hoversten, Staff.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pam Mitchell, HS; Angie Ha, HS; Kelly Cichy, LDES
GUESTS: None
AGENDA ITEM
DISCUSSION
ACTION TAKEN
Review of the previous
The committee reviewed the original RFP for seed grant. The group
Nancy will have the
RFP and the system for
felt the evaluation criteria seem to be fairly consistent, but needed to be review process to the
reviewing proposals
emphasized. There was discussion regarding the evaluation of RFPs
group at the December
outside of the reviewer’s area of expertise. Submitters need to be
meeting
made aware that the reviewer may be outside of their field and to
accommodate for this in their proposal. It was suggested that a page
limit be placed on individual sections. The committee felt that the
Approach and Innovation portions should be a little beefier. It was
suggested that the background section may not be needed as the
submitter is required to include their vita. The committee would also
like the applicant to include their current line of research in there
biosketch. It should also give a good idea of how the RFP fits in with
a current line of inquiry or further extend current line of inquiry. The
following are the suggested page limits:



Significance section (#2) should be integrated into the biosketch 12 pages
Approach 2-3 pages
Impact and Innovation statement 2-3 pages.
Those awarded the grants for fall semester have agreed to have their
grant put on the web.
The budget & biosketch would be appendices. Group requested that
perhaps the submission could be entered as separate pages, but open up
as one document when the reviewer clicks on it. Applicant will need
to make sure that their CV is updated and complete on the web.
It was also shared by a member that the doctoral students were also
very excited about the SEED grants.
EVALUATION PROCESS:
The evaluation needs to be more in alignment with the requirements of
the RFP.
Discussion of
Dissertation
Reviews/Awards
There was discussion on reinstituting the dissertation award. Past
awards will be reviewed to see what was done. Nancy shared that the
last time the awards were given there were only 3 persons nominated.
She explained that there needs to be criteria developed in order to
reinstitute this award. There would need to be both qualitative and
Michelle Hoversten will
attempt to revise the
evaluation to bring it
into alignment with the
components of the RFP.
quantitative persons on the review committee. There was discussion
on whether students would be interested. Nancy suggested students
could submit a manuscript that could later be published. It was
suggested that another incentive might be to tie it to an invited address
to be given.
The group will consider this and a decision will be made at the next
meeting. Nancy suggested that it would be nice if it could be tied into
honors week in April.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:
Next meeting: Dec. 20th 9:30 am, WH, Rm 507M
Respectfully submitted
Luci Wymer, Recorder